neosloc archive

Repositories /

tokio-rs/axum

https://github.com/tokio-rs/axum · commit e57b547eb95d · evaluated 2026-10-12 with neosloc 0.8.0 · JSON

1.40 integrability index over 10 applicable dimensions
service, cli, library surfaces · owns data
$670k → $215k classic COCOMO → neosloc value (32% survives)
buy make / buy = 128.87 over 3 years

Dimensions

Interface surface 4 exemplary [library] An API reference is generated from the code (autodoc, mkdocstrings, typedoc, …).

Can another program use it through a documented, machine-readable surface?

  • next: [service] L4 A second surface: another transport (HTTP and a protocol, two protocols), an MCP server, a CLI with JSON output, or an SDK. (only one programmatic surface)
  • next: [cli] L3 Machine-readable output (--json/--format) and documented exit statuses. (no --json/--format option)

cli ladder · level 2

  • ✓ L1 Invocable non-interactively: no prompts, or prompts guarded by a TTY check or a --yes/--no-input option. no interactive prompts
  • ✓ L2 --help documents every option (at least 90% of options have help text). axum/benches/benches.rs 1 match
  • ✗ L3 Machine-readable output (--json/--format) and documented exit statuses. no --json/--format option
  • ✗ L4 The output format is specified by a JSON Schema. no JSON Schema for the output

library ladder · level 4

service ladder · level 3

  • ✓ L1 A network surface exists: HTTP routes, an MCP server, or a standard protocol listener. axum/src/extract/path/mod.rs rust-axum/actix: 198 route declarations
  • ✓ L2 A contract exists: a checked-in OpenAPI/GraphQL/protobuf/AsyncAPI spec, a framework-generated spec, MCP tool schemas, or a standard application protocol that off-the-shelf clients speak (RESP, MQTT, gRPC, PostgreSQL wire, …). examples/Cargo.toml graphql server
  • ✓ L3 A contract covers its transport: an HTTP contract covers at least 80% of declared routes (generated contracts do), or the application layer over a standard protocol (commands, topics, payloads) is specified in a protocol document or AsyncAPI. examples/Cargo.toml generated from code: graphql server
  • ✗ L4 A second surface: another transport (HTTP and a protocol, two protocols), an MCP server, a CLI with JSON output, or an SDK. only one programmatic surface
Contract stability 1 ad hoc Releases are versioned (semver tags or versioned changelog sections).

Can integrators rely on it not changing under them?

  • next: L2 A changelog exists and marks breaking changes. (the changelog doesn't mark breaking changes)

all ladder · level 1

  • ✓ L1 Releases are versioned (semver tags or versioned changelog sections). 18 semver tags, latest v0.4.0
  • ✗ L2 A changelog exists and marks breaking changes. the changelog doesn't mark breaking changes
  • ✓ L3 A deprecation mechanism is used in code (warnings, @deprecated, Deprecation/Sunset headers) or the API is versioned. axum-extra/src/extract/form.rs 2 matchesaxum-extra/src/extract/query.rs 2 matches
  • ✓ L4 Across tagged releases, no OpenAPI operation, CLI option or __all__ symbol was removed without first being deprecated. 18 tagged releases compared
Events 2 partial Webhooks sent by this system, or a streaming endpoint (SSE, WebSocket).

Can others react to state changes without polling?

  • next: L3 Signed webhooks registrable through the API, or two mechanisms (webhooks, streams, a broker). (one delivery mechanism, or webhooks that are unsigned or not registrable through the API)

service ladder · level 2

Identity 1 ad hoc Programmatic authentication (bearer tokens, API keys).

Can a machine act with its own revocable, least-privilege identity?

  • next: L2 Per-client, revocable credentials (managed API keys, service accounts) or OAuth2. (no managed keys or OAuth)

service ladder · level 1

  • ✓ L1 Programmatic authentication (bearer tokens, API keys). examples/jwt/Cargo.toml 1 match
  • ✗ L2 Per-client, revocable credentials (managed API keys, service accounts) or OAuth2. no managed keys or OAuth
  • ✗ L3 Credentials carry scopes or permissions. no scopes or permissions
  • ✗ L4 Standard provisioning or federation (OIDC client credentials, SCIM). no OIDC client credentials or SCIM
Data portability 1 ad hoc The data schema is explicit (migrations, DDL, schema files).

Can its data get in and out, in bulk, in open formats, with an explicit schema?

  • next: L2 An export exists (endpoint or command, not only the UI). (no export)

all ladder · level 1

Agent ergonomics 1 ad hoc [service] Errors are machine-readable: consistent JSON over HTTP, or a standard protocol's native error replies (RESP errors, MQTT reason codes, gRPC status, SQLSTATE).

Can an automated caller use it without guessing, and recover from failure?

  • next: [service] L2 Field-level validation errors, and paginated lists. (no request validation)
  • next: [cli] L2 Data on stdout, diagnostics on stderr, non-zero exit on failure. (no non-zero exit on failure)
  • next: [library] L2 Inputs are validated with messages naming the bad argument. (no input validation errors)

cli ladder · level 1

  • ✓ L1 Never blocks on a prompt when stdin is not a TTY. no interactive prompts
  • ✗ L2 Data on stdout, diagnostics on stderr, non-zero exit on failure. no non-zero exit on failure
  • ✗ L3 Documented exit statuses distinguish error classes, errors are JSON in JSON mode, and color is off when not a TTY. exit statuses aren't documented
  • ✗ L4 --dry-run, limits for long or costly operations (timeouts, budgets), and agent docs. no --dry-run

library ladder · level 1

service ladder · level 1

  • ✓ L1 Errors are machine-readable: consistent JSON over HTTP, or a standard protocol's native error replies (RESP errors, MQTT reason codes, gRPC status, SQLSTATE). axum-core/src/response/mod.rs 3 matchesaxum/src/response/mod.rs 1 match
  • ✗ L2 Field-level validation errors, and paginated lists. no request validation
  • ✗ L3 Typed errors (RFC 9457 over HTTP, or a standard protocol's typed error codes), idempotent writes (Idempotency-Key), and rate-limit signals. no typed errors
  • ✗ L4 Dry-run or validate-only, conditional requests, and agent docs. no dry-run
Embeddability 2 partial [cli] Installable as a package that provides the command.

Can another system run and compose it without a human?

  • next: [service] L2 Configured through environment variables, documented: a .env example, a config schema, or docs naming at least half of the variables the code reads. (the environment variables aren't documented)
  • next: [cli] L3 Published to a public registry and run non-interactively in CI. (not published to a registry)
  • next: [library] L3 Published to a public registry, with at most 10 runtime dependencies. (not published to a registry)

cli ladder · level 2

library ladder · level 2

service ladder · level 1

  • ✓ L1 Runnable from source with documented steps (a README with commands). README.md
  • ✗ L2 Configured through environment variables, documented: a .env example, a config schema, or docs naming at least half of the variables the code reads. the environment variables aren't documented
  • ✗ L3 A container image. no Dockerfile
  • ✗ L4 Composition artifacts (compose, Helm, IaC). no compose/Helm/IaC
Extensibility 0 absent Not yet: Internal seams: a registry, registration function or plugin manager.

Can behaviour be added without modifying the code?

  • next: L1 Internal seams: a registry, registration function or plugin manager. (no registry or registration function)

all ladder · level 0

  • ✗ L1 Internal seams: a registry, registration function or plugin manager. no registry or registration function
  • ✗ L2 The docs show how to add behaviour through those seams (even in-tree). no registration functions to document
  • ✗ L3 Out-of-tree extensions are discovered (entry points, a plugin directory, configuration) without editing the package. extensions must be added inside the package
  • ✗ L4 The extension API is versioned, has lifecycle hooks, and has example extensions. the extension API isn't versioned
Observability 0 absent [service] Not yet: A health or readiness endpoint, or a container healthcheck.

Can an operator, or an orchestrating agent, tell whether it works and why not?

  • next: [service] L1 A health or readiness endpoint, or a container healthcheck. (no health endpoint or healthcheck)
  • next: [cli] L1 Meaningful exit statuses, and errors on stderr. (no non-zero exit on failure)
  • next: [library] L1 Logs through a standard logger namespace and never prints from library code. (no standard logger)

cli ladder · level 0

  • ✗ L1 Meaningful exit statuses, and errors on stderr. no non-zero exit on failure
  • ✗ L2 Verbosity control for diagnostics (--quiet, --log-level, --debug). no --quiet or log-level control
  • ✗ L3 Structured logs (e.g. --log-format json) or a machine-readable run summary. no structured diagnostics
  • ✗ L4 Tracing hooks (OpenTelemetry). no tracing hooks

library ladder · level 0

  • ✗ L1 Logs through a standard logger namespace and never prints from library code. no standard logger
  • ✗ L2 Log levels are used meaningfully (at least two levels). fewer than two log levels used
  • ✗ L3 Optional metrics or tracing hooks. no metrics or tracing hooks
  • ✗ L4 OpenTelemetry instrumentation available. no OpenTelemetry instrumentation

service ladder · level 0

  • ✗ L1 A health or readiness endpoint, or a container healthcheck. no health endpoint or healthcheck
  • ✗ L2 Structured logs. no structured logging
  • ✓ L3 Metrics. examples/prometheus-metrics/Cargo.toml 2 matches
  • ✗ L4 Distributed tracing (OpenTelemetry). no tracing
Change legibility 2 partial CI runs the tests; applications pin dependencies (libraries and zero-dependency projects are exempt).

Can an agent change it safely with limited context?

  • next: L3 At least 90% of modules fit 32k tokens and no file exceeds 12k; test/source token ratio at least 0.3; at least 70% of the code is typed. (96% of modules fit 32k tokens; 2 files over 12k; test/source token ratio 0.13 < 0.3)

all ladder · level 2

Make or buy

Make with agents

1,077,675 output + 26,941,875 input tokens on anthropic:claude-opus-5-5 ≈ $42.

12.0 agent-hours · 136.4 human days (12.5 steering + 123.9 rediscovering history).

$106,082 over 3 years

Buy (adopt as is)

15 min to running (via cli) + 2 min to first use (via library).

240 min/year of upgrades; price $0/year.

$823 over 3 years

Buying wins below $35,086 per year. How this is estimated.

Classic COCOMO vs neosloc value

Classic COCOMO (sloccount)

21.27 KSLOC → 59.5 person-months over 11.8 months.

$670k

The effort to write it by hand, as COCOMO priced it in 1981.

neosloc value (neoCOCOMO)

Reproduce with agents: 15.8 PM (×0.27 of classic; 63% of behaviour captured by tests, contract and docs).

Rediscover uncaptured history: 5.9 PM (296 fixes in 2005 commits by 470 authors).

× leverage 0.93 (integrability) × obsolescence 0.95.

$215k (19.1 PM)

What survives

32% of the classic figure

27% of the replacement cost lives only in code and history.

How the value is estimated.

History

2026-10-07: 1.32026-10-07: 1.32026-10-07: 1.32026-10-07: 1.42026-10-12: 1.4
EvaluatedCommitneoslocIndexMake or buy
2026-10-12e57b547eb95d0.8.01.40buy
2026-10-07618496288c410.8.01.40buy
2026-10-07618496288c410.7.41.30buy
2026-10-07618496288c410.7.31.30buy
2026-10-07a000c300848c0.7.21.30buy